Thank You Karl Rove

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove’s head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we’d say the White House political guru deserves a prize–perhaps the next iteration of the “Truth-Telling” award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real “whistleblower” in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He’s the one who warned Time’s Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson’s credibility. He’s the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn’t a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Facts! Facts! You are wasting, I tell you WASTING the moonbats’ time with facts! Just as media organizations recounting the Florida ballots three times and getting the same result – Bush wins – three times could not convince them that Bush WON the election in 2000, just as the recent 15-page litany of ties between Saddam and al Qaida could not convince them of the existence of a connection, just as showing specifically how the amateur canvassers had screwed up the raw exit poll data could not convince them that the early exit poll numbers were wrong, giving them FACTS about this will not convince them that the evil Dr. Strangerove is not a treasonous Nazi dog who intentionally exposed a secret agent (working at a desk at headquarters) in order to discredit that courageous paragon of veracity, Joe Wilson. They have their minds made up…so don’t confuse them with any facts.

“[Rove’s] the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves.”

Is a bald faced lie. Can anyone here point to a single instance where Wilson said on the airwaves or elsewhere that Cheney recommended him for the job? Indeed, you can find that Wilson has said the exact opposite on the airwaves. In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer on August 3, 2003:

WILSON: Well, look, it’s absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.

Anyone care to show me a quote where Wilson says something different? He has always said that Cheney’s office asked the CIA to look into Iraq/Niger intelligence and the CIA decided to send Wilson. Wilson never said that Cheney selected him, recommended him or otherwise knew that he was the going to check out the intel.

So Rob, is this the lie you’ve been trying to spin all week?

earthJuly 13, 2005

Oh yeah, Rove for the bench. kudos.

blueeyesJuly 13, 2005

I have one question for the left on this topic.

Rove wasn’t cleared for access to the Plame’s name, position, or operation. He simply couldn’t have found out indirectly – someone had to leak to him. Even if he is Novak’s source, he only spread the information, he didn’t actually find it himself. So, unless the media gets some special pass in this sort of thing, why the hell do we care about Rove as more than a single link in the chain anymore than we care about Novak or, hell, anyone that reported on the whole damn affair?

Find the person CLEARED for the info and then pin it on them.

Oh, and Frameone, I dunno if Wilson’s said it himself on the airwaves, but if you plug in “Wilson sent by Cheney” into google, you still get a hell of a lot of sites claiming that Cheney himself sent Wilson. I can’t verify Rob’s reports, but regardless of where the false information regarding Wilson’s run started, it’s still false.

frameoneJuly 13, 2005

Hey Blueeyes, could you verify how many of those sites are right leaning and simply repeating the same false talking point?

Also, guess what? Turns out that the information about Plame’s role in recommending Wilson itself came from a leaked classified document that the CIA was very upset about, not only because it was leaked but because its contents may have been falsified. And guess who it was who first reported on the leaked document? Why none other than Jegg Ganon in Talon News. Would anybody here care to respond to this? No big deal or interesting coincidence? Me? I say curiouser and curiouser.

From the Washington Post on Friday, December 26, 2003:

“Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame’s alleged role in arranging Wilson’s trip could not have attended the meeting.

“It has been circulated around,” one official said. CIA and State Department officials have refused to discuss the document.

On Oct. 28, Talon News, a news company tied to a group called GOP USA, posted on the Internet an interview with Wilson in which the Talon News questioner asks: “An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?”

Does not Wilson IMPLY this in the statement following the one you quote? Your quoting of evidence is selective.

WILSON: What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby’s statement, it was probably the vice president himself…

BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.

WILSON: Scooter Libby.

They asked essentially that we follow up on this report — that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed.”

Wilson may not have “asserted” that he was recommended but he sure as heck implied that he was recommended (indirectly by Cheney’s office).

Moreover, if Cheney’s office knew it’s likely Cheney knew in some capacity, too. Or did he? ( I doubt the whereabouts of Joe Wilson was a high priority for Dick.)

And if Cheney wasn’t directly involved in Wilson’s Niger trip, then that pretty much debunks (at least on this one point, among many others) the alleged coverup theory that the WH (aka: GW and Dick) was in involved in “knowing about the yellowcake” scandal.

It short, your gripe is a minor quibbling over a columnist’s semantics.

frameoneJuly 13, 2005

Also, Blueeyes, it is important to find out where Rove got his information. Indeed, it isn’t entirely clear that Novak and others aren’t also legally libel for revealing Plame’s name. I’m not sure where the law stands on that. But certainly leaking classified information to the press is against the law in this instance — that’s why the CIA asked DOJ to persue the case in the first place — and if Rove did so he should face the music.

JesseJuly 13, 2005

blueeyes:

I guess I’m part of “the left” so I’ll try to answer your question: Rove shouldn’t be singled out. Anyone who leaked the info should be in trouble. But it’s now established that Rove was involved in the whole mess (even if he did nothing illegal); since McClellan, on numerous occasions, stated that Rove was not involved, and since the White House has made it clear that anyone involved would be fired, people are talking about Rove. It’s a reasonable response, and one that the right would make if this were occurring in a Democratic administration.

frameoneJuly 13, 2005

Peter,

Wilson is not implying that Cheney recommended him. Wilson is saying that Cheney’s office or Cheny himself asked the CIA to look into the Niger story. It was only on an “operational level” at the CIA that it was decided to send someone to Niger. Cheney and others, as they have sadi, had no idea that the trip even took place until Wilson got back.
The only time the White House got interested in Wilson was when he reported publicly that the Iraq-Niger connection was BS and that after repeatedly being told this, the Bush team went ahead and put it in the State of the Union anyway. The White House blamed Tenet for not checking the speech himself and then when Wilson went public, they, in my opinion, outed his wife. The facts may prove otherwise but, well, we’ll see.

The bottom line is that there is nothing anywhere where you will find Wilson saying or implying that Cheney recommended him for the job.

frameoneJuly 13, 2005

Also Peter I would argue that it isn’t a minor quibble over an author’s semantics. It is the entire thrust of the piece: that Rove mentioned Plame to correct a falsehood that Wilson himself was spreading.

Wilson never said or implied any such thing. In the portion of the interview you quote Wilson is discussing his opinion of whether or not Cheney was involved in the asking the CIA to look into the Niger intel. But it’s important that he begins this discussion by saying flat out that Cheney and others had no knowledge of him or his trip to Niger. How could Cheney recommend Wilson for a trip he never even knew about?

frameoneJuly 13, 2005

Could I remind all of you now who are so vigorously attacking Joe Wilson’s credibility now what Novak wrote about him in his infamous column:

“His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein’s wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed “the stuff of heroism.” President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.”

Now since you are all defending Karl Rove at the expense of Wilson, might someone please refer me to anyone, anywhere who has referred to Rove as showing “the stuff of heroism” ever. If this is going to boil down to a debate about character can we please have Novak’s own words entered into the record in support of Mr. Willson?

frameoneJuly 13, 2005

Sorry, that would be “Can we please have the words of Novak’s own colleague entered into the record?”

PeterJuly 13, 2005

frameone:

No, no. You misunderstand me or I didn’t state it clearly enough. I agree with you. Cheney didn’t know. Cheney’s office knew. You’re right, how could Cheney recommend him for a trip he didn’t know about. (I say this absolves Cheney of any wrongdoing or of being a “subject” in an investigation.) However, by Wilson making those statements back-to-back it can certainly be implied that Cheney knew, even though that would be incorrect and many people have misintrepreted as such. In many interviews. Wilson repeated the same statement over and over again; it’s meant to imply: If Dick’s office knew, then Dick knew. And that’s dead wrong. Yet, when this affair first broke, many on the left kept insisting that WH was involved.

And I do disagree with you that the thrust of column is about correcting a falsehood on Wilson’s claim; I think it was a kind of friendly warning to Cooper to not hang his journalist’s neck on Wilson’s report or anything Wilson said.

I guess if we agree that Rove has likely done nothing illegal, then why go after Rove? Why does Miller willingly go to jail for Rove? Cooper’s testifying (yet?). And it seems more and more that Plame wasn’t the “outed” covert operative. Heck, as far as I can tell, sitting at a desk in DC for five years hardly indicates she was “covert”.

I think the public likes a clearcut, holy-cats-this-is-bad kind of controversy. This just doesn’t seem to have the guts to it that some people want.

Anyway, I kind of agree with you and I kind of don’t. I’m not very well-versed on this particular matter. After the SIC found Wilson’s report as being bogus, I stopped really paying attention until recently. Playing catch up I suppose…

frameoneJuly 13, 2005

Peter —

First off, if Plame wasn’t a covert CIA agent then there is no need for an investigation. But clearly she was as it was the CIA that asked for the investigation in the first place. Let’s be clear. When Plame’s identity as a CIA operative was publicly revealed by Novak her ability to do her job for the CIA was compromised. That’s why there’s an investigation in the first place.

Second, whether Cheney knew or didn’t know about Wilson or Wilson’s trip itself isn’t important. The investigation isn’t about who knew or didn’t know about Wilson’s trip. The investigation is about who knew of Plame’s job and who leaked it. Cheney may never have heard of Wilson before Wilson’s trip but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have been involved in the after the fact leaking of Plame’s job. We’ll have to wait and see what Fitzgerald comes up with on that score. Certainly Scooter Libby, the VPs chief of staff has come under some scrutiny and been asked ot testify. But again, we’ll see.

Finally, we don’t know yet if Rove has done anything illegal. We do know that Scott McClellan and the White House has repeatedly denied that Rove was involved in the leak in anyway. Rove himself said he only discussed Plame’s job at the CIA after Novak’s column. Now, thanks to the Cooper email, we know for a fact that neither of these assertions is true. That’s the really clear cut fact that has the press corps so excited: They know now for a fact that they were lied to by the administration. The administration is now not commenting on the investigation and Rove’s lawyer has changed his stories and carefully parsed his words a number of times since this all started to heat back up. Luskin, Rove’s lawyer, initially backed Rove’s claim that he only spoke about Plame after the Novak column. Now he says Rove did speak about Plame but didn’t use her name. Luskin said recently that Rove did not reveal any classified information. Now, pose Cooper’s email, he refuses to comment on whether Rove did or didn’t. Does it mean Rove is guilty of a crime? No. But should we start handing out medals? Not by a longshot.

I would love to comment, but I’m actually heading out the door to CA for a much-deserved camping, 4-day trip near Lake Tahoe. I will leave you with this article that appears in today’s NRO. (Yes, it’s right-wing, but it fills out more of the picture.) It’s an interview with Luskin.

Now it’s a matter of who called who. And there’s not much reason to believe Rove called Cooper. Anyway, happy reading.

Lew CarkJuly 13, 2005

I was really hoping the lefties would figure this out on their own. But as usual, they can’t generate a unique thought. All thoughts must be issued to them. So here it is.
Hasn’t anyone noticed that there IS something very “Rovian” about this whole thing. What was the actual big story of the past couple of weeks. Justice O’Connor’s retirement. Immediately, the left geared up to oppose the nomination of her replacement. Up to and including preparing their detailed opposition to the nominee before there even was a nominee. Just fill in the name, one size fits all.
So Rove volunteers to fall on his sword. Although in reality it is more like a thumbtack. And the left goes nuts! Tourches and pitchforks and to the castle to finally kill the monster. And while the monster taunts the lynchmod from high above, the doctor is free to work in his lab on the SCOTUS monster unmolested by the mob.
Now this will end, as usual, with the mob descovering that the monster is actuall a fluffy bunny in a monster costume. But valuable new monster making time has been bought.
Bwaa Haaa Haaa

frameoneJuly 13, 2005

“Immediately, the left geared up to oppose the nomination of her replacement. Up to and including preparing their detailed opposition to the nominee before there even was a nominee.”

Um, Lew, I think you’re thinking of the Christian Right who immediately started to slam Gonzalez and any as yet unnamed nominee who didn’t unequivovally support their line on Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, gat marriage etc. Geez, they even pushed Bush to defend a nominee (Gonzalez) that he hadn’t even nominated yet. Lefties didn’t have to do a thing on that front.

JimJuly 13, 2005

The Karl Rove BS Scandal does highlight an important issue: the saturation of dolts working in the CIA. It is no secret among law enforcement professionals that the CIA is staffed by a bunch of Lefties. For years the CIA has evolved into a think-tank with losers who couldn’t catch a cold much less a terrorist. Plame used her position (and she wasn’t a covert operative, by the way) to attempt to hurt Bush during the re-election campaign. Even the NY Slimes admits that Wilson’s reports and statements are flawed and full of inaccuracies, which is Liberal-speak for lies. In the world of the looney left only GOP members lie; Democrats and Liberals are inaccurate.

blueeyesJuly 13, 2005

Frameone, the first ten sites I picked up were distinctly anti-war: dailykos, antiwar.com, etc. I don’t doubt that there are some damn misguided right-wingers, too; I think there was a Talking Points post as well. But it doesn’t really matter, given that all of those first ten were saying that they thought Cheney had sent Wilson. Not trying to disprove that, no, they actually say this as part of a basic jump-off pad for the rest of an article. It’s wrong, but it’s practically the main-stream viewpoint.

I can’t explain why Jeff Guckert (aka Gannon) might have been the first person to break news on a bit of news that humiliated a person who doesn’t like George Bush… but I can bet you can come up with a good reason why one of the more conservative writers might have been actually looking for that sort of information. He may be a bad writer, but so is most of the New York Times, and they’ve got more ties to political parties than even gay Gannon does, so we can’t take that alone as proof of error.

As to the rest of it, I guess you all haven’t read the actual laws recently. You can only be held responsible for leaking information if you a) had access to the information in the first place, b) stole the information, or c) made it available to an enemy of the United States. Everything else isn’t covered. That’s why Novak’s gotten off scot-free, and why Rove’s likely to do the same. He SHOULD get fired if he actually released the info to the press, but so far, not even they are willing to throw too many bowling balls his way, so I don’t think they have too much proof available to suggest that.

jYtJuly 13, 2005

blueeyes,

I don’t think I understood part of your post. You said, “given that all of those first ten [dailykos, antiwar.com, etc.] were saying that they thought Cheney had sent Wilson.”

You’re saying that they were claiming that Cheney was the one who initially sent Wilson to Niger? I’ve never been to antiwar.com before (I thought thery were just a link station), but I have read dailykos quite a bit, and I find that hard to believe, especially given the following that was posted today:

“As we’ve now mentioned several times, one of his claims is that Wilson was caught lying when he claimed Cheney had sent him to Niger — something which, of course, he never said.”

Kos is saying that Wilson never even claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger.

Of course I’m assuming that you’re talking about articles at Kos, not comments. If not, I have a few thousand crazy comments to show you on this blog and every widely read blog with a comments section.

Oh, and thanks for further explaining why the “Judith Miller is going to prison to protect herself” theory is incredibly misguided using your Novak logic. None of those could possibly apply to Miller, so she’d have nothing to fear if she were the leaker.

blueeyesJuly 13, 2005

Uh, she couldn’t be going to jail to protect herself; she’s not even first in the trail to have published the leaked info, nevermind having clearance herself. Where in this thread did that come up? The only time her name’s been mentioned is that it seems ridiculous that she’d go to jail to cover Rove’s ass.

And, no, I wasn’t refering to a comment. I was referring to an article on the primary site from a little over a week ago. You can do the search yourself and see, I pasted my criterea verbatim. I’ll leave it up to you to decide what to think of Kos’ willingness to ignore his own past posts.

CarrickJuly 13, 2005

frameone: I agree with you on this one. Wilson never said that he went to Africa at the behest of the Bush administration (or if so, I have been unable to find it). It is the media which is promulgating this lie.

Take for instance this article: Wilson was sent to Africa by the Bush administration to investigate an intelligence claim that Saddam Hussein may have purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson said he could not verify the claim and criticized the administration for manipulating the intelligence to ”exaggerate the Iraqi threat.’

As usual, the media “sexes up” the connection between Wilson and the Bush admin (probably because it makes Bush look bad). Those on the right see the media reports and assume that the story ultimately came from Wilson. Like I said, I’ve looked long and hard, and haven’t found anyplace where he said this. (On the other hand, I haven’t gotten up the nerve to read his book.)

You gotta love frameone’s logic:
If 10 liberals repeat a lie, it must be true because so many people are saying it. But if 1000 conservatives repeat a proven truth, it must be nothing more than an echo chamber repeating talking points.

For example: frameone says that if Plame wasn’t outed, then why is there all this investigation into what Rove said/did? Obviously: one of the main points of this investigation is to actually determine if she was actually outed or not. Duh.

The only reason this has any traction is because liberals are still trying to get some measure of revenge for the loss of their major operatives: Dan Rather, Eason Jordon, Bill Raines…Oh, and for the loss of Bill Clinton’s legacy.
Hell hath no fury like a Moonbat hoping to get revenge.

evilleftyJuly 14, 2005

is it just me or is this so weighted with conjectured facts that the basic premise of the debate is lost. I’d like to restate in brief the what is currently known and would be interested to hear honest opinions on what they mean to OUR country, as opposed to the amateur spin zone trying to discover if Chenney’s secretary’s cat might have been the original source.

We have 2 journalists, one was jailed, the other had to work a deal to stay out of jail for not disclosing their source. Now which ever side of the political spectrum you might believe is controlling the media, I think it’s pretty obvious that protecting a journalists privilege to conduct their position with integrity is a pretty crucial part of American democracy. ie Freedom of Press isn’t a constitutional right on a whim. Were they correct for refusing to disclose their source.

Now, after its discovered that Rove had SOMETHING to do with affair, the administration is rather understandably reluctant to rectify this with their former hard lined approach of removing anyone who had anything to do with it.

Now this in itself sounds like the basis for debate into both American politics and ethics (of all parties involved). Is it possible to have a debate in this country without being called a “liberal unpatriotic democrat” or a “conservative extremist republican”, or have we all become such children, I mean politicians that discourse is impossible without tired echos of crap cooked up by the respective spin doctors.

DanJuly 14, 2005

We do know that Scott McClellan and the White House has repeatedly denied that Rove was involved in the leak in anyway. Rove himself said he only discussed Plame’s job at the CIA after Novak’s column. Now, flag thanks to the Cooper email, we know for a fact that neither of these assertions is true. That’s the really clear cut fact that has the press corps so excited: They know now for a fact that they were lied to by the administration.

InquiringJuly 14, 2005

Dan:

Once again, as many people have been saying, the very reason the entire Grand Jury hearing is going on is to determine if Rove really did ‘leak’ any information. Just because he stated she had a hand in Wilson’s appointment, and that she might work at the CIA does not automatically constitute a leak.

For it to be a leak the information would have to not be readily available or known. It is very questionable how available it was, as Novak said he contacted the CIA and was told she worked there, many former coworkers have readily jumped up and claimed she was covert (a much better argument can be made for them breaking the law than Rove, as they divulged she was covert loudly and readily; see MocGovern, Larry Johnson, etc).

That is the question being asked, did Rove, by only mentioning Plame’s employ, but in no way mentioning anything about covert status that he very well might not have known, break the law?

Please, note that. Rove never said she was covert. Novak never said she was covert. There is a strong argument that Plame’s employment was not secret and, if not widely known for fact, speculated widely.

Chances are the only people who broke the law were the first ones who stood up and told the world Plame was compromised because she was covert. No one before them indicated Plame was anything more than a CIA employee, which is a whole lot less damaging than standing up on national television and declaring that she was covert but now her cover is blown.

So, guess the real question is, who were the first people to announce Plame was a covert agent? Those are your ‘leakers’.

edJuly 14, 2005

Hmmm.

“I think it’s pretty obvious that protecting a journalists privilege to conduct their position with integrity is a pretty crucial part of American democracy.”

Why? Please explain, in detail, why you believe this to be true?

Consider “Deep Throat” the source for Woodward and Bernstein. Isn’t the fact that this person had an personal grudge and an agenda an important thing for the public to know? Isn’t the fact that this person was the 2nd in command of the FBI, and thus had the power to indict anyone involved, something the public should have know? Wouldn’t then the public be entitled to ask what the hell this guy was doing leaking bits of information when he should have been filing charges?

So. Why not explain why this is supposedly a good thing. And while you’re at it explain how it couldn’t be abused by people who would slander at will, and then hide behind the reporters. Explain how reporters couldn’t quote their unnamed sources, who could say the vilest things imaginable, and then shrug their shoulders and say “well I didn’t say it”.

Or how about all those journalists who made up their sources? Explain how this wouldn’t shield them from discovery. Like Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair or others.

And while you’re at it list a few examples of how an anonymous source helped the democracy by remaining anonymous. There aren’t as many as you’d suppose.

edJuly 14, 2005

Hmmmm.

@ frameone

“Geez, they even pushed Bush to defend a nominee (Gonzalez) that he hadn’t even nominated yet.”

That’s because 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. And this crap is going to end right now. If Bush doesn’t appoint a solid staunch conservative constitutionalist judge to the Supreme Court, you’ll have a ring-side seat to the Republican/Conservative meltdown of 2005.

I know dozens of local conservatives and they’re all ready to freakout if Bush does something stupid. If he does, it’ll be the one thing that saves the Democrats in 2006.

BRJuly 17, 2005

Re: Posted by: ed at July 14, 2005 11:06 PM

Well put, Ed! The press has abused the Constitution with all their specious sources.

BRJuly 17, 2005

Thanks to Frameone for that WP 12/26/03 article. You’ve just given me another piece of the puzzle – another fake doc! Planted with several conservative news agencies, including Talon. Then, when the “Who’s The White House Gannon-Enabler?” angle had no legs, the bait had to be personally called in by reporters to entrap Rove, but he didn’t bite.

Btw, Novak’s article was published on 7/14/03, but already written by 7/11/03 and sent out for syndicated publication. Cooper’s call to Rove was around 11 am on”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/”>on 7/11/03. Days earlier, Novak had informed Rove about his upcoming article, so Rove already knew of its contents when he spoke to Cooper. Cooper’s subsequent 11:07 AM, breathless “super-double-triple top secret deep background info from Rove” e-mail to his bureau chief can hardly be evidence in court of Rove’s exact words. E-mails can be faked too – if Cooper was the first one in that conversation to mention Wilson’s wife and her CIA affiliation, does anyone think he’d put that in his e-mail? I’m hoping Rove has a tape of the conversation.

The planners of the Plame part of the 1999-2005 op against Bush wanted from the start to re-create Watergate II, with old Watergate ghost John W. Dean in the wings still egging it on with flawed strategy advice and analyses, starting as early as 2003. There’s a particularly revealing article on 10/3/03. How ironic that the Wilsons even lived in the Watergate complex before they struck it rich. It’s really funny to see it all backfire – as the first one should have. (But Nixon fell for Dean’s bait then and participated in a coverup of wrongdoings which could be laid at the CIA’s corrupt faction’s door.)